Vincent,
you did it! I tested FireBee version and nov disk cache also works! Now
surfing the net is also faster.
Thank you a lot!
There is still one problem with Atari built and if you have will to take a
look. it doesnt display the webp pictures.
Instead to display it, it wants to download it
tched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as
> > well. Investigation showed that the cache folder had gone.
> >
> > I re-created it and the older version runs again but 5032 deletes it.
> >
> >
> > Peter
>
> I beleive I have fixed this now. T
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:33:10PM +, Peter Slegg wrote:
>
> I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error.
>
> NetSurf failed to initialise
>
>
> I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as
> well. Investigation show
I dont remember such issues in the past but I know disc cache never worked
for me.
If I understand right the errors I posted, NetSurf cant update the file as
the file is locked?
I guess the file should be released after update/creation?
Vido
V V ned., 22. mar. 2020 ob 23:24 je oseba Peter Slegg
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:54:06 , Peter Slegg wrote:
> Hi Vido,
>
> From a quick look at the commit, I think if there is any issue
> with the cache it deletes it.
>
> http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/commit/?id=14286b381b12034140768800c7ba10baa7c3b334
>
> I suspect i
Yes I confirm this behavior. NesSurf wont stard if I remove cache folder,
...
But while I am surfing I ger this error:
(235.674993) [ERR netsurf] content/fs_backing_store.c:1024
set_store_entry: attempt to overwrite entry with in use data
(235.674994) [ERR netsurf] content/fs_backing_store.c
Yes I tried 5033 as well, same problem.
Like I said, IF there is a problem with the cache it deletes the
folder and then doesn't re-create it.
Experiment:
Delete/Move your cache folder and create a new, empty one.
Start Netsurf.
I reckon it will throw an error and not start.
Peter
O
Hi Peter,
Did you try 5033 build? In my case cache is not deleted.
As I understand in your case NetSurf just throws an error and then it runs
so you can surf the web?
Vido
V V pon., 9. mar. 2020 ob 20:54 je oseba Peter Slegg <
psl...@scubadivers.co.uk> napisala:
> Hi Vido,
>
&g
Hi Vido,
>From a quick look at the commit, I think if there is any issue
with the cache it deletes it.
http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/commit/?id=14286b381b12034140768800c7ba10baa7c3b334
I suspect it cannot create it again for some reason.
Peter
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:03:08 , U
On my FireBee build 5033 is running.
Cache folder is present. But I get some other error on the console which I
dont remember right now.
But NetSurf is running fine.
Vido
V V sob., 7. mar. 2020 ob 18:06 je oseba Peter Slegg <
psl...@scubadivers.co.uk> napisala:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:33:10 , Peter Slegg wrote:
>
> I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error.
>
> NetSurf failed to initialise
>
>
> I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as
> well. Investigation showed that the cach
I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error.
NetSurf failed to initialise
I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as
well. Investigation showed that the cache folder had gone.
I re-created it and the older version runs again but 5032 deletes
In article <56ef43aa6dnets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin Avison wrote:
> If anyone wants to try my small program which produces file and directory
> statistics for the disc cache, plus an obey file which if run will delete
> all empty directories, please email me.
Yes please.
I
I know from previous posts that using the Netsurf v3.7 disc cache on my
Iyonix running RISC OS is probably not improving performance, depending
on how low my internet speed is. I am using it to gain experience in the
hope that newer, faster hardware will bring some performance benefits.
After
After an informative thread on how the disc cache is used by Netsurf I
wrote:
On 13 Apr 2016 in article <55705bbd12nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin Avison wrote:
> I have now deleted the whole cache, and reset Netsurf to the default
> values for disc of 1024MB and 28 days, and m
In article <55bcf7a3bdnets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin Avison wrote:
> 3.5 (6th April 1016)
So before the Norman Conquest, then?
--
| John Williams
| joh...@ukgateway.net
Names for Soul Band:- Soul Doubt *
fine, currently it's 492K -
> > with 75 directories in it.
> Replacing the directory with an image filing system using a file format
> that is not designed for random access will render the cache totally and
> utterly pointless unless you're on 3600 baud internet. Perhaps n
filing system using a file format
that is not designed for random access will render the cache totally and
utterly pointless unless you're on 3600 baud internet. Perhaps not even
then.
B.
In article <55bcdc22b0nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin Avison wrote:
> How does !Cache take account of NS choices? Disc cache is set to 1024MB.
> > What are the disadvantages of using a zip fine for Netsurf in !Cache.
> > This is on ARMX6. I'm aware that the lfa
In article <55bc5e48e6li...@torrens.org.uk>,
Richard Torrens (lists) wrote:
> My SSD (250GB nominal) was running out - only about 6BG free.
> So I deleted !Cache's Netsurf directory. Now 157GB.
> Two questions:
> How does !Cache take account of NS choices? Disc
My SSD (250GB nominal) was running out - only about 6BG free.
So I deleted !Cache's Netsurf directory. Now 157GB.
Two questions:
How does !Cache take account of NS choices? Disc cache is set to 1024MB.
What are the disadvantages of using a zip fine for Nwtsurf in !Cache.
This is on ARMX6
In article <1fd5ae6f55@abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted
> by !Locate searching through all of !Cache. So on all my machines I
> made a new directory that comes alphabetically last: $._
I haven
In article <20160413104528.ga24...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> I will go over how this feature works once again.
[Snip]
Thanks Vincent for the long and detailed explanation of how Netsurf uses
the cache.
After over 45 years working with computers I understand that t
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:06:04PM +0100, David Pitt wrote:
>
> How about this from a Titanium :-
>
> (75142.82) content/llcache.c:3402 llcache_finalise: Backing store wrote
> 2590212 bytes in 1394 ms (average 1858114 bytes/second)
1.8MB/sec to an SSD is nothing to write home about. I'd exp
Vincent Sanders, on 13 Apr, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:49:39PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> > There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance
> > on RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add
> >
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:49:39PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance on
> RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add the
> results of some investigations of the Netsurf v3.4 cache on
Richard Porter wrote on 12 Apr:
> I exclude any cache directories from backups. Ditto Scrapdirs.
When you do a search, however, !Locate so far lacks the ability to
exclude specified directories. That's what decided me to move !Cache
and !Scrap to the very end of the root directory.
On 12 Apr 2016 Richard Porter wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2016 Jim Nagel wrote:
>> Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr:
>>> ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc
>>> space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ...
>> Several months ago I got fed
In article <485cc96f55.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>,
Richard Porter wrote:
> I exclude any cache directories from backups. Ditto ScrapDirs.
Same here, there is no point.
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
On 12 Apr 2016 Jim Nagel wrote:
> Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr:
>> ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc
>> space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ...
> Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted
> by !Locate sea
In article <1fd5ae6f55@abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> So on all my machines I made a new directory that comes alphabetically
> last: $._
That may well not come last on all filing systems, so no-one make that
assumption.
Jim doesn't specify what FS(s) all his machines are using.
I
Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr:
> ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc
> space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ...
Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted
by !Locate searching through all of !Cache. So on all my machines I
There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance on
RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add the
results of some investigations of the Netsurf v3.4 cache on my Iyonix,
running RISC OS 5.23 (11 Oct 2015).
In the past I had problems with the cache
On 8 May 2015 as I do recall,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
>
> I am interested in the persistent disc cache write performance on
> different platforms, especially RISC OS, to see if my recent changes
> improve the situation there..
>
[snip]
> I would like these two line
ith build CI 2774
>> and would appreciate two lines of output which appear all together
>> near the end of the log.
>> An example is:
>> content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache total/hit/miss/fail
>> (counts) 2620/240/2380/0 (100%/9%/90%/0%)
>> content/l
ry Pi 2 with FAT
>formatted SD card"
>(7033.74) content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache
>total/hit/miss/fail (counts) 2461/687/1774/0 (100%/27%/72%/0%)
>(7033.74) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3361: Backing store wrote
>22931046 bytes in 0 ms average 71300 b
In message <20150508154706.gb2...@kyllikki.org>
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> OK perhaps I needed to be more explicit in what I wanted to achieve
> from this testing.
Thanks.
> This means the browser must be used to retrieve numerous web pages
But if the "Cache disabl
s most of
> you have discovered. I have improved whats reported with build CI 2774
> and would appreciate two lines of output which appear all together
> near the end of the log.
> An example is:
> content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache total/hit/miss/fail
> (count
OK perhaps I needed to be more explicit in what I wanted to achieve
from this testing.
I am interested in the persistent disc cache write performance on
different platforms, especially RISC OS, to see if my recent changes
improve the situation there..
This means the browser must be used to
In message <54c085ed15ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>
on 8 May 2015 cj wrote:
> In article <0c9680c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
>Andrew Pinder wrote:
>> I'm curious that there is so much variability!
> Will some of this not be due to the fact that stuff is alr
In article <0c9680c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
[snip]
> More measurements:
> Various sites including BBC election coverage: 212787 bytes/second
> Relaunch, load home page only and quit: 0 bytes/second ???
> Same again, but force a refresh and then quit: 31146 bytes/second
> Same again, but afte
In article <0c9680c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> I'm curious that there is so much variability!
Will some of this not be due to the fact that stuff is already in the
cache and won't be saved again?
--
Chris Johnson
In message
on 7 May 2015 Andrew Pinder wrote:
> I wonder how stable the measurements are. I've just upgraded this
> ARMini to RO 5.22 so have redone the measurements, still with NS#2771:
> 161126 bytes/second. That's a massive increase. I had visited a
> number of websites for that.
> Tryin
In message <019bfbbe54.andrew-...@waitrose.com>
on 5 May 2015 Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>
> on 5 May 2015 Vincent Sanders wrote:
>> Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the
>> disc cache
Using a PandaBoard with the cache on a Fat32 formatted SSD (not the
SD card) gave the following:
(663.19) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3361: Backing store
average bandwidth 414186 bytes/second
--
Chris Johnson
Vincent Sanders, on 5 May, wrote:
> Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the disc
> cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably
> interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later.
[snip]
> I am especially interested in test
In article <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> I am especially interested in testing from the Iyonix as this was
> right on the edge of usefulness previously.
Just loaded a few random pages from BBC and from ROOL on the Iyonix.
I did have the disc ca
In message <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>
on 5 May 2015 Vincent Sanders wrote:
> Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the
> disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if
> suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 o
In article <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the
> disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if
> suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later.
[s
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:48:46AM +0100, cj wrote:
> In article <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>,
>Vincent Sanders wrote:
> > This change should be beneficial to RISC OS users as filecore is
> > (apparently) dreadful at this kind of usage pattern.
>
> I wonder if this is because RISC OS
In article <20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> This change should be beneficial to RISC OS users as filecore is
> (apparently) dreadful at this kind of usage pattern.
I wonder if this is because RISC OS files are 'defragmented' all the
time - I think I am correct in
Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the
disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if
suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later.
The previous changes switched to using a small number of large files
to hold all the "small&quo
In article <55256ea0.8010...@netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake wrote:
> On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
> > So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to
> > what
> > should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
&g
bytes/second
>
Results with Netsurf 2687 on Iyonix: the program now *sometimes* doesn't
complain about disc cache bandwidth, whereas previously it invariably
complained!
It seems to be completely random: here are results from three runs done
within minutes of each other, of which the cach
On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to what
should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
Too slow to be useful. Set disc cache size to 0.
--
Michael Drake http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
In article <20150408104544.gg18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> Just to summarise the outcome of all the observations on the improved
> disc cache.
> The improvements make the cache viable on many more supported systems,
> including more RISC OS systems.
> On
Just to summarise the outcome of all the observations on the improved
disc cache.
The improvements make the cache viable on many more supported systems,
including more RISC OS systems.
On PC with modern OS it made no great improvement as their OS could
already cope with the directory layout and
e
> > been here for many many years.
> A bit technical for this list but
> http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/tree/content/fs_backing_store.c#n326
> explains ...
I did have a look, but clear as mud to me.
I have just deleted my cache from Netsurf v3.3 - about 2,500 files
In message <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>
on 3 Apr 2015 Vincent Sanders wrote:
> I know several RISC OS users regularly use the CI builds and have had
> issues with the disc cache. This is partly a request for assistance
> and partly a warning.
> I have recently chan
In article ,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> > In article <54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
> >lists wrote:
> >> Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
> >> NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
> > So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
> > hype surrounding the disc spe
In message <54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>
on 4 Apr 2015 cj wrote:
> In article <54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
>lists wrote:
>> Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
>> NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
> So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
> hy
In article <54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
cj wrote:
> > NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
> So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
> hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
I'm not sure how much the download speed affects the results; I had
several "timeouts"
In article <54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
lists wrote:
> Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
> NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
--
Chris Johnson
In message <20150403135237.gd18...@kyllikki.org>
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote:
>> In article ,
>>David Pitt wrote:
>> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
>> > no "too slow" message. My test piece was ht
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
[Snip]
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved.
[Snip]
(152.54) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store
average bandwidth 561256 bytes/second
--
__
[snip]
> I would suggest that any of you using the disc cache to delete it
> before running a NetSurf CI version after #2696 NetSurf will continue
> to run just fine if you do not but all the old cache files will be
> left behind and never cleaned up.
Is there a ',' or an
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will read
> something like:
>
In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
> Can't say that I blame it! The ROOL forum content is particularly
> turgid at the moment, no sensible software would see any purpose in
> cacheing that.
>
I am not sure what you mean there. Viewing the forum on an old
(ex-XP) laptop now running a light linux,
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:13:17PM +0100, David Pitt wrote:
> I also think NetSurf's performance is severely hampered by the slow
> processors available to RISC OS.
No, the CPUs are perfectly adequately fast. A Raspberry Pi can do many
megabytes a second when running Linux. RISC OS's IO layer an
I have now tried on the PandaBoard. Used random pages from the Daily
Mail site (not much content if you are not interested in celebrates!).
The first time I tried I fairly quickly ended up with the cache being
disabled - the logged average speed was not much over 100 KB/s.
However, I then reran
cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
> In article ,
>David Pitt wrote:
> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was no
> > "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk because
> > that is a particularly heavy duty site.
>
> OK. A lot of random browsing around th
e/content/fs_backing_store.c#n326
explains all the constraints from all the different systems the cache
must deal with, the result is lowest common denominator. Beleive me
when I say working out that limit set from a many dimensional dataset
like that was not easy
With the changes I have just made
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote:
> In article ,
>David Pitt wrote:
> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
> > no "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk
> > because that is a particularly heavy duty site.
>
> OK. A l
In article <20150403131050.gq29...@platypus.pepperfish.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
> >cj wrote:
> > > I can see why RIS
In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
> Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
> no "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk
> because that is a particularly heavy duty site.
OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to:
(5743.13) cont
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> In article <54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
>cj wrote:
> > I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
> > deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21
cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
> In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
>Vincent Sanders wrote:
> > The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
>
> I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the ROOL
> forum. Message
In article <54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
cj wrote:
> I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
> deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
> directories and over 19,000 files.
Yes, there seem to be lots of directories - many
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:48:39PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
> > If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> > achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> > the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will re
Vincent Sanders, on 3 Apr, wrote:
[snip - cache bandwidth]
NetSurf 2696
RPi2 SDFS 6067 bytes/s
RPi2 Fat32FS 15220 bytes/s
Iyonix320252 bytes/s
A9home509265 bytes/s
VRPC W7 SSD 605771 bytes/s
--
David Pitt
Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will read
> something like:
> (2298.806358) desktop/netsurf.c netsurf_exi
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the
ROOL forum. Message came up almost immediately that the cache was
being
I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
directories and over 19,000 files.
--
Chris Johnson
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> (2298.804881) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing
> store average bandwidth 128324035 bytes/second
Hells bells - you'll be lucky to a tenth of that speed on RISC OS
hardware and probably less on usb or sdfs
I know several RISC OS users regularly use the CI builds and have had
issues with the disc cache. This is partly a request for assistance
and partly a warning.
I have recently changed the disc based caching to use fewer small
files. This change is not backwards compatible and will leave the old
In message <54a544aeb4stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>
on 16 Mar 2015 lists wrote:
> In article <549f1fa454.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
>Andrew Pinder wrote:
>> I'm finding this on my ARMini. Is this common?
> I also see it from time to time on my ARMX6 and that's got a fast SATA SSD.
I
Harriet Bazley wrote
> Down with categorical imperatives!
Kant only had one.
--
John Rickman - http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/lynx
siempre luchar contra el zeitgeist
In article <549f1fa454.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> I'm finding this on my ARMini. Is this common?
I also see it from time to time on my ARMX6 and that's got a fast SATA SSD.
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
In message <72ec0aa554.harr...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Harriet Bazley wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2015 as I do recall,
> Andrew Pinder wrote:
>
>> In message <20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org>
>> on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders wrote:
>>
>>
On 14 Mar 2015 as I do recall,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message <20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org>
> on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders wrote:
>
> > The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write
> > operations.
>
> > As a res
On 14 Mar 2015, Peter Young wrote:
[snip]
> Or you could use !Memphis.
Application and source files are available at Malcolm Hussain-Gambles'
http://www.paymentlabs.com/riscos/tutorials/memphis
Tony
In article <036f31a454.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Peter Young wrote:
> Memphis is a RAM disc that saves itself at shutdown and loads
> itself at startup if you configure it to do this.
The Cache can grow - by default it is set to 1 GB. It would soon
overflow the available RAM
On 14 Mar 2015 Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message <20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org>
> on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders wrote:
>> The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write
>> operations.
>> As a result of this performance tracking The
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 07:44:46 GMT, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message <20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org>
> on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders wrote:
>
> > The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write
> > operations.
>
> > As a res
Andrew Pinder wrote:
>Presumably using !Cache on a RAM disc would be a waste of time as
>stuff would not be saved when the computer was turned off.
Not entirely a waste of time. If during one use of the computer (ie until
you next turn it off) you visit multiple pages from any site the
In message <20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org>
on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders wrote:
> The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write
> operations.
> As a result of this performance tracking The browser will now detect
> if a system cannot sustain a
The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write
operations.
The implementation of this briefly introduced a bug generating
excessive logging (seen as heavy disc writing and cpu load) which has
been squished and CI build #2413 should not have the problem.
As a result of this
In article <18f1976b54@abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> cj wrote on 16 Nov:
> > Is anyone else finding that the new Cache feature does not seem to
> > expire its content?
> Well, that was a revelation. Did a count on
> !Boot.resources.!cache.caches.d
In article <18f1976b54@abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> The runfile of my active copy in Boot Resources (which presumably
> came with a recent-ish version of Netsurf inside its usual
> boot-update file) is dated 2014-09-16, but !Sidediff shows it is
> identical to the 2007 runfile.
This
t see a
problem there.
(The actual gobbledydook is the cached data and headers.)
> What is supposed to control expiry? Can't find anything about expiry
> within the !Cache application itself.
!Cache is not NetSurf-specific. The control settings are in each
application that uses it.
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
